Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/November 2013

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by Crisco 1492 22:47, 26 November 2013 [1].

Nominator(s): FonEengIneeR7 (talk) 14:55, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because in my opinion this list offers the opportunity to compare large airlines by different categories, is easily comprehensible and does not an overload an average reader with content. I put a lot of effort into this article to bring it to its current state and I think it's about time for this article to get promoted. FonEengIneeR7 (talk) 14:55, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Arsenikk ^(talk)

As the article stands now it has substantial work before it meets the criteria.

• The lead need to be substantially longer, perhaps five times the length. It should discuss the various definitions and why certain airlines are better at some criteria than others (for instance, long-haul airlines will perform relatively better than low-cost airlines on passenger-km and opposite in pax).
• Please Do Not Capitalize Every Word In Section Headers.
• Every table should have a brief introductory text, which among other mentions the unit which is being used (thus eliminating the need to have it in the section headers).
• What is the criteria used to determine accumulated figures for airlines groups? It is airlines operated under the same main brand (e.g. Delta Air Lines / Delta Connection), or is it based on ownership groups (like International Airlines Group, which according to its article is the world's seventh-largest)? The article needs a clear definition of what it counts as a "airline". Alternatively it would make alternative listings for groups and airline brands.
• To be honest, I was expecting more than top-ten lists. Perhaps top 25 would be more suitable? The structure (although it isn't particularly well-formated) of list of largest airlines in Europe is perhaps more well-suited, as it makes it easier to compare airlines and easier to include all.
• From an accessibility point of view, the use of flags in this way is problematic, as only some viewing platforms are available and it requires a specialized knowledge of flags to identify countries. If you feel that country is a defining aspect of an airline and wish to include it, it should be listed in a separate column.
• I would have included a table for airlines by revenue, as this is a frequently-cited size comparison (even though it does favor airlines in high-cost countries).
• Fleet size needs to be dated.
• Please ensure that images have a consistent size. It would be nice with one or two images in the lead section.
• All the links in "see also" are listed in the navbox, so they are redundant to have in the "see also" section.
• I don't see the relevance of including an external link to IATA.
• Frankly, i would have preferred this article to be named "list of the largest airlines", although do not move the article until this FLC is concluded.

I will leave these comments for the time being and may have additional comments when these have been resolved. Arsenikk ^(talk) 13:10, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I like the list, but I don't like that it includes only top 10. For such a topic, much more than top 10 is necessary. Nergaal (talk) 10:07, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments

• Why do you continuously link air line articles? Other than in the lead, articles should only be linked once, per MOS:LINK
• In "By Number of Destinations," "Delta air Lines" should be "Delta Air Lines".
• The lead does not summarize the article very well. It should information on every section.
• To be a featured list, the article must have Alternative text for images.

• CrowzRSA 15:34, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - the nominator hasn't responded at all to the November 3rd comments and its been 22 days... CrowzRSA 22:26, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by SchroCat 19:30, 23 November 2013 [2].

Nominator(s): Matty.007 17:38, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I have been working on this for some time in my sandbox, having felt that a FL would be an interesting place to aspire to, and thought that this article was as good a place as any to start. Thank you in advance for any constructive criticism. Matty.007 17:38, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The work is nice, but you really need a longer intro. Nergaal (talk) 15:43, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Y Fixed lead size (I hope). Was that your only problem, Nergaal? Thanks, Matty.007 11:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per intro and really bare URLs. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:14, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • • OK, I'll fix the intro in a few hours. Crisco 1492, by bare URLs, are you referring to the bank websites? Thanks, Matty.007 08:30, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • The references are also rather bare (publisher? date published? accessdate?) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:24, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • There isn't always that much information on the pages. Do the banks need to have the URLs covered? Thanks, Matty.007 11:54, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Then not for all of them. But some of those BBC sources (random example) have more. The URL dates this to 2001, for instance. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:18, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • I fixed the references that I could see, I hadn't thought of getting the dates from the URLs, so thank you for the idea. Is it OK now? Matty.007 13:34, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • Enough for me to strike my oppose, although the lede could use some development. It needs to let us know important aspects of the topic (I'm shocked that the Euro isn't even mentioned in the lede right now, for example). Compare such featured lists as List of works by Amir Hamzah, in which the works are put in context, allowing for the list to be used for general reference as well. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:41, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • I wasn't sure what to put in the lede, seeing as the only other FL which is currency related is 7 years old, and policies have moved on. Do you think that describing what currency is in more detail would be OK? Thanks, Matty.007 13:47, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Most commonly used currency, shift towards Euro, most dominant non-Euro currencies, perhaps? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:55, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Thanks, that's useful to know. I will start trying to integrate it into the article (although to me, the section on the Euro at the bottom covers some of that). Thanks, Matty.007 13:56, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Quite a big expansion of the lead, is that OK now? Thanks, Matty.007 15:08, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Looks a bit better. Will have to have some restructuring and copyediting, but I can't give feedback on that until tomorrow (already rather late here) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:21, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                          • After that, is it all OK? Thanks, Matty.007 15:41, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                            • We'll see.

Oppose from Crisco 1492

• Are any of these units of currency free to use image-wise?

Y: Euro image moved to top

• This list of currencies in Europe is a complete list of all de facto present currencies in Europe, but an incomplete list of the preceding currency, and the currency introduction dates. - We should not start with "this is a list". We know it's a list. Go straight to the subject. "There are (number) currencies currently used in Europe."

Y: wording fixed

• The UN is not an observer, the Vatican is. Check the grammar.

Y: wording fixed

• What's the point of having the information about the UN anyways?

Defining the terms of the list, and a bit of background information

• Overall the prose is a big mess and looks like it needs a complete overhaul. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:51, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to fix the order a little. Is the article OK now, or is there something else? Thanks, Matty.007 10:38, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • You still have a "this list", the ISO code seems to have no connection to anything, etc. My oppose stands. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:51, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Paragraph removed, re-phrased that sentence. Matty.007 11:01, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Crisco 1492 So that I know what I'm dealing with, is the sentence and the ISO paragraph OK? And by overhaul of text, is that just the intro? Thanks, Matty.007 16:43, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dudley Miles

• To deal with the bare urls you could look at Template:Cite web. Alternatively, show them as [http://www.bankofalbania.org/ Bank of Albania] which shows as Bank of Albania.
  • YI wasn't sure whether to leave them, or format them as you said, but I have changed the format
• It is not strictly correct that any country which enters the European Union (EU) is expected to join the Euro. A country which joins the EU is required to join eventually when it meets the critieria. It is worth mentioning that Sweden has not yet joined although it has not opted out.
  • I will look into this
    • Done
• The dates for the pound sterling are wrong. The UK did not adopt the pound in 1971 - it just adopted a decimal division of the pound. The date of 1914 for the 'old' pound also looks odd. It is based on a commercial website and the date is not given in any other source I can find. The pound as a unit of account goes back to Anglo-Saxon times. According to my 1973 Encyclopedia Britannica, the main coin in the 18th century was the gold guinea, but in the nineteenth it was the sovereign and half-sovereign. I do not think there is any fixed date when the pound was introduced which can be cited, and perhaps other editors can suggest the best way to deal with this.
  • I will look into this
    • Fixed
• The opinion of the Telegraph that it is "foolish" for Latvia to adopt the Euro is POV.
  • NThat is also the view of the PM, but I gave the statistic that they based that on.
    • Y: someone removed it
• A picture of each coin would be more relevant than the ISO code. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • NI agree with Crisco here, the page would also take ages to load.
  • I will probably work on this in a few days, due to limited editing activity (thanks for the points: there is not time limit, is there?). Thanks, Matty.007 20:06, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • One to two months. A lot of the coins are copyrighted, so I don't think you should try using pictures in the table (free stuff will not be available for many of them). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:24, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Added replies to Dudley Miles (Crisco: did you see my reply?). Thanks, Matty.007 19:12, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes. My concerns still stand. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:30, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quick/Initial Comments from Godot13-

• Currency sign column does not sort following an organizing principle. Perhaps it would be better to include the currency sign in the present currency column following the name of the currency.
  • Y You have not done this. You have done part of this.
    • Removed the sort button
      • I think that this is OK now that the sort button is gone (and it is similar to List of circulating currencies)
• I don’t think ISO codes are necessary (or even helpful).
  • I think that they are used in trading of currencies, and are a useful inclusion
    • When three active reviewers (me,Crisco 1492, and Dudley Miles) question the relevance of the ISO codes for this list, you might want to take that into consideration...
      • Removed (against my best wishes, but it is three to one)
• All the bank websites do exist in English, but are not linked to the English version (I fixed this, if the English version site provided a translation of the bank title it was used, otherwise the native-language title was used). All links should now be to English-language versions of the websites.
  • Thanks
• Country bank column does not need to be sortable (it can rely on the Country sort to avoid using hidden key for each of the bank names).
  • Y
• Map colors are confusing: blue (traditionally representing water) is used to represent land.
  • I didn't make the map, so unfortunately have no idea how to change the colours
    • Also, most (if not all) of the 'Country and the euro' articles use the image
      • Not trying to be difficult, but I still find the color scheme confusing.
        • Not much I can do about this though
• More to follow...-Godot13 (talk) 23:57, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Previous currency column – the following are missing currency and date (or date only): Albania, Azerbaijan (date only), Bulgaria, Denmark (date only), Kazakhstan (date only), Lichtenstein (date only), Monaco, Montenegro (date only), Norway, Poland, San Marino (date only), Sweden (date only), Turkey (date only), Ukraine (date only).
  • I left out things where there weren't reliable sources backing things up
    • This creates issue with consistency of data. Have you tried Google Books for World Paper Money Catalogs?
• I like the idea of adding an image column to illustrate a specimen from either the introduction year, or of the previous currency (if the it would fill at least 75% of the cells in such a column). Just a personal opinion, not a requirement.-Godot13 (talk) 00:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The idea was raised above, but see Crisco's (and my) responses. I have tried to address your concerns. Did I do it adequately? Thanks, Matty.007 16:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • You have started to address the issues. With great respect for Crisco, I must disagree about loading time if images were included. I have a current FLC on Fractional Currency with images for each note and there is no issue with load time-Godot13 (talk) 19:54, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I never said anything about load times. Please do not put words in my mouth. I said a lot of the currencies will not be public domain or freely licensed, so there will be a lot of holes. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:36, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I must have misinterpreted what was said a few lines above. I did not mean to put words in your mouth.-Godot13 (talk) 23:59, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that was me who made that point. Matty.007 17:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I will leave images out unless there is more opinion for the inclusion; it is two to one at present

• I have started going through the references and realize there may be some issues with the quality and reliability of "Oanda". While I have only just started going through the table in detail (re: the missing data I referred to above), for example:

The Albanian Lek - It was first introduced in 1926 (not 1991). Granted there have been 3 issues, but the 3rd issue was introduced in 1995.

The Austrian Schilling - First schilling (1925-1938), then the German Reichsmark during WWII, then the Second schilling (1945-1999). I don't know if Austria printing anything other than the Schilling, but if you put 1945 for the introduction date of the schilling, you need to state it was the second schilling, and why.

Both Azerbaijan and Belarus has a First and Second Manat and Ruble (respectively)...

Bosnia and Herzegovina – Convertible Mark established by agreement in 1995 but did not replace the existing currency until 1998...

I removed dates, which is the only area in which Oanda weren't so good. Matty.007

This is where I'm stopping for now. I will go through the rest of the table. I'm very sorry, but for now, unfortunately, I have to Temporarily Oppose based on a lack of detail and possible factual inaccuracies, which I am willing to collaborate to resolve.-Godot13 (talk) 00:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Here are two references that may be helpful (and exist in preview mode in Google Books)- Two different versions of Standard Catalog of World Paper Money: 18th Edition (2013) Modern Issues – 1961 to Present and General Issues 1368-1960.-Godot13 (talk) 00:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having a look, I don't think that they do past currencies, so I have only five gaps (which personally I think is acceptable). Are you willing to review your !vote, or have I addressed the issues unsatisfactorily? Thanks, Matty.007 17:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Will re-review this weekend.-Godot13 (talk) 19:37, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I have removed the temporary oppose based on the changes that have been made since I left that comment. The second reference I provided above covers currency from 1368 to 1960

Minor point

• There is no need to say twice that the 2 Euro coin is pictured top right. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:36, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Y: done. Matty.007 16:55, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed some more issues, but Crisco 1492; I am not sure that you have seen my comment above? Thanks, Matty.007 17:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I've seen. Why do you need a section on Euro all on its own? Wouldn't a map of the currencies used in Europe work better? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 21:31, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • How would that work? A colour code? I think that the current map adequately illustrates the point made in the above paragraphs. I moved the Euro section into the intro. Matty.007
• I still do not think the dates for the UK are right. It is now given as 1849, but this was just when the florin was introduced. I have found an academic source at [3] which states that the pound coin was first struck in 1489, and this seems to me the best date. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:01, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great Britain paper 1694 and coin (shilling and sovereign) 1489.

I think the main coin before 1489 was the penny, but I cannot find a good source for this. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:43, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will change it if a source is found

I removed dates per suggestion below, so this is now not relevant. Matty.007

*Question - Hi, is the general consensus that this is not suitable for FL yet; and cannot be fixed quickly; or is it possible for me to get some support !votes as well? Thanks, Matty.007 16:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• First, I'm not entirely sure why there should be a separate article from the FL List of circulating currencies for this, but you've done a good job and that article could use some improvement (promoted back in 2006) so I'll let it slide for now.
  • I saw that it was a poor standard, and though about doing one for each continent. Matty.007
• That list includes the names of fractional units, which should be included here as well.
  • Will I need to reference it? Thanks, Matty.007
    • Done, but unreferenced per your comment about the country banks backing up currencies
• I know citations are good, but you don't really need one for the number of countries in Europe.
  • Removed. Matty.007
• The first paragraph seems choppy, with the third sentence not connecting to the first two.
  • Attempted fix. Matty.007
    • Yeah, I like that better.
• You can simply say that the Euro is used by 332 million people; the source doesn't need to be included in text, and "said to be used" is unnecessary.
  • Fixed. Matty.007
• The third paragrah isn't bad, but isn't about Europe's currencies in general. There should be more overview to balance it out.
• Again I know shouldn't be complaining about too many sources, but I feel that they're cluttering up the table, and particularly in the Present currency column it shouldn't just link to Xe or a forex site. The link to the Bank site will have it covered, and this isn't material that will be challenged by anyone. The Euro symbol doesn't really need a [13] footnote next to it every time either.
  • Euro ref removed. So I should remove all referencing to present currency? Matty.007
  • OK. Does the same go for the introduction date? Matty.007
    • If you want. Dates are more challengeable material; just no need to use the same citation for both columns either. Maybe consider a separate source column. Reywas92^Talk 16:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, given that Godot13 found that Oanda may not be a reliable source, I have removed the dates. Matty.007
• Good work though! Reywas92^Talk 15:10, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Liechtenstein has the former currency in the symbol box.
  • Fixed. Matty.007

Further comments I think you are nearly there - just a few points which still need fixing.

• There is a limit of 4 paragraphs of introduction for FLs, but you have 6. You could fix this by merging 2 and 5, which are on the same subject, and deleting para 6, which is on a topical matter which does not really belong in the list. The comment on Sweden could be shortened to something like "Sweden has not joined the Euro, although it has not formally opted out, but it has not yet become a member of ERM II, which is one of the preconditions for joining the Euro."
  • Merging... Matty.007
    • Done. Matty.007
• Note 11 is mis-spelled and it is not really relevant as it is about Denmark, not Sweden.
  • Sorry, I don't understand. Reference 11? Matty.007
    • Yes. "11. ^ "ERM II". Minestary of Finance. 11 November 2011. Retrieved 17 October 2013." It is a ref on Sweden but the website is the Danish ministry. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, that is ERM ii, which got me confused. I backs up the sentence at the very bottom. Matty.007
        • And I was previewing it, which is why it wasn't #11 for me. Matty.007
• UK dates are still wrong. There is no correct solution, but you could use the 1489 date I suggested above unless you can find a better one. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:26, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I removed all dates. Matty.007

Comments by Arsenikk ^(talk)

• Quite frankly I don't see what this article offers which isn't or could not easily be included in List of circulating currencies.
  • A splitting into continent size chunks of a large list. Matty.007
• Any reason currency codes are left out? It would be a very useful thing to include.
  • See above discussion. Matty.007
• I find it odd that the article provides external links to the national banks rather than a wikilink to out article on them.
  • I think external links are OK; they provide a use for the article. Matty.007
    • I agree that they look odd as those grim in-line links. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:32, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, that's two to one. I will change this in a few days if there are no comments otherwise. Matty.007
• Any reason Norwegian speciedaler is not listed as a former currency of Norway?
  • Because I couldn't find any sources which said this. (I have found one, and added the info.). Matty.007
• "Øre" is spelled "Öre" in Swedish.
  • Fixed. Matty.007
• Avoid contractions, such as "doesn’t".
  • Fixed. Matty.007

Arsenikk ^(talk) 13:58, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Why are the fractional units capitalized? Nergaal (talk) 10:11, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought that they needed to be. Do they not need to be? Thanks, Matty.007 19:22, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I pointed out earlier that citation 5 on Sweden is both on the wrong country (Denmark) and mis-spelled, but this has not been corrected. I would suggest deleting it. Also "but in addition, Sweden does not use the Euro, but Sweden has not yet met the ERM II, the Exchange Rate Mechanism, which has the result of them not using the Euro." is confusing. ERM is just one of the technical hoops Sweden would have to go through if it decided to join. I think all you need is something like "Sweden has also not adopted the Euro, although unlike Denmark and the UK it has not formally opted out." Dudley Miles (talk) 20:18, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I missed that bit. Now fixed, and attempted sentence fixed. Matty.007 20:23, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by Giants2008 10:01, 23 November 2013 (UTC) [4].[reply]

Nominator(s): Zia Khan 22:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Courtney Walsh, the leading Test wicket-taker for the West Indies, took 23 fifers in international cricket. This list of his fifers is now, I think, according to the FLC criteria. Comments/suggestion from anyone will be much appreciated. Cheers! Zia Khan 22:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – With the size of the parent article being only 4.5k chars, I may have to oppose this nom at the moment. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 14:01, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw – I didn't pay attention to this, that's convincing, so I'd like to withdraw (I don't have time to expand the parent article) the nomination. Zia Khan 18:54, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by Giants2008 10:01, 23 November 2013 (UTC) [5].[reply]

Nominator(s): Simon (talk) 13:37, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I think this is a comprehensive list of Christina Aguilera's concert tours, as well as her notable live performances, thus I think it is suitable for a featured list. Simon (talk) 13:37, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, quite well sourced only small issue would be concern over need for future maintenance over time. — Cirt (talk) 03:12, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you very much! — Simon (talk) 04:39, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose what makes a performance "notable"? {{famous}} applies.... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:25, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How does it look now? — Simon (talk) 11:13, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments: You should double check websites because apparently, its missing her duet with Tony Bennett at the 2007 Primetime Emmys and her National Anthem performance at Games 6 and 7 of the 2010 NBA Finals.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 15:21, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quite, how do we know this is complete? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Game 6 and Game 7 performances at the Super Bowl are all counted as performances of the anthem at the Super Bowl that year. — Simon (talk) 04:13, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did not mean the Super Bowl. I meant the 2010 NBA Finals. She also performed at Game 6 and 7 of that series. Super Bowl only has one game. And she also performed at the 2007 Primetime Emmys.--Birdienest81 (talk) 05:17, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Simon, how do we know this is complete? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:51, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The list only includes performances that are performed at big awards, big television series, or/and telethons. (I followed List of Madonna concert tours to work on this list.) — Simon (talk) 04:42, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is the definition of a "big" award? A "big" television series? Etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:52, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd certainly consider the Emmys a big award ceremony, since that is the most significant award for U.S. television shows. That performance still isn't included, although the NBA Finals ones have been added (how were they overlooked when the All-Star Game performance counted as a major event?). I'm also leery of the list's scope, and wonder how many other appearances aren't included. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:05, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of other appearances, she performed "What a Girl Wants" at the Miss USA 2000 pageant. So really, there could be plenty of performances you may have missed.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 05:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Big" is subjective. Perhaps we should be including all notable performances? The nominator has stated that this page is based on List of Madonna concert tours, so might this page likewise be List of Christina Aguilera concert tours? "Notable live performances" is a section of the Madonna page; the Aguilera page could be built the same way. Rejectwater (talk) 00:00, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Question - What's going on here? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:08, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Does her judging on The Voice count as a performance? Also, the title might be better as "live performances" since videography entries would also fall here. Nergaal (talk) 12:05, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments

• YouTube, in this case, is not a reliable source, per WP:NOYT. CrowzRSA 03:56, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Done

• There is no verification for the tour duration dates. Sources like this are reliable and support that kind of information.
• Number of performances should be referenced, if possible.

• I could see that all of them have been sourced already

• The Justified & Stripped Tour tour dates are referenced but not referenced properly. Citations go after punctuation if not in standalone info (i.e --"yo man."(ref)-- or --12(ref)--. cannot be --"yo(ref) man"-- or anything like that.) CrowzRSA 19:43, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• That's the only sourcing of tour dates on the page I can see. CrowzRSA 19:43, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It might be a good idea to check out List of Slipknot concert tours and its FLC page. That was one of my pojects way back in the day and it really goes to show you how much referencing you need to put into an article like this. CrowzRSA 06:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• There's too much referencing in the lead. For instance, her vocal chord injuries are referenced in the lead then again in the list. Things like this should be fixed. CrowzRSA 19:43, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I feel like the prose in the list is not as informative as it should be. There should be more critical input in certain tours, especially the cancelled tour...I'm sure you can come up with something. CrowzRSA 19:43, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Instead of "Other tours", should the section not be "Cancelled tours"? CrowzRSA 19:43, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Link "Medley" to List of musical medleys or link it to Wiktionary. CrowzRSA 19:43, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• There is no Alternative text for images. CrowzRSA 19:43, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - This is taking too long to get the article up to FL. If you can fix all these things I've listed then you'll have my support, but if it gets denied FL then you have a guideline to work with.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by Giants2008 10:01, 23 November 2013 (UTC) [6].[reply]

Nominator(s):  — ₳aron 13:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because.. I feel that the list is very comprehensive and meets the FA criteria. I have followed other FL's a guideline for the list so I hope that it meets it. I've not done a list for a singer like this with this many albums, so I feel that the main issue that will be bought up by other editors could potentially be the length of the lead. It is four paragraphs, but there is 10 albums mentioned, so it's not much per album when broken down like that. Thanks.  — ₳aron 13:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Underneath-it-All (talk) 00:40, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks  — ₳aron 10:20, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, I'm really liking the nice comprehensive WP:LEAD section!!! :) — Cirt (talk) 03:08, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you  — ₳aron 17:44, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source comments –

• Reference 30 (About.com) is not a reliable source. I suggest finding an alternate source to cover this information.
• In the last three references, I see "Arista Records", "Arista", and "Arista Record". Which is it? Giants2008 (Talk) 22:20, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• FN28 has Arista Records linked, the other refs don't: it's up to you which you choose, but you need to be consistent
• (Related to, but separate from, the above) You have a number of the refs with all the publisher details linked, and others with none of them linked. Again, your call which way you go, but you should be consistent. Those with unlinked details are: 23 (British Broadcasting Corporation); 29 (Christianity Today International)
• FNs 1, 4 and 6 has "Billboard. Prometheus Global Media."; FN16 has Billboard "(Nielsen Business Media)": which is correct?

Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 03:28, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any progress on the above two groups of comments? It's been a couple of weeks, and I'd expect to see some work done by now. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:20, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delegate comment - Calvin, do you still have interest in this nomination? It is nearly 3 months old. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll have a go at wrapping this up, rather than letting it go stale. Already resolved the first group of comments and the first of the second group, will get to the rest later........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:55, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry yeah I will do it today. I've not go much spare time as I do an MA.  — ₳aron 13:36, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think someone has done them already?  — ₳aron 21:46, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I haven't address all the outstanding comments above......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:45, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Just as with List of songs recorded by Nicki Minaj, the single releases are unreferenced and there are items at Whitney Houston discography which are missing here. Also, "The Greatest Love of All" in lead vs "Greatest Love..." in the list. Adabow (talk) 23:10, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by Giants2008 10:01, 23 November 2013 (UTC) [7].[reply]

Nominator(s): Javier Espinoza (talk) 21:56, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it is part of a project for the Lo Nuestro Awards that were considered the "Latin Grammy", before the inception of the actual Latin Grammy Award. References for the first ceremonies are hard to find, I even sent emails to Univision and Billboard to find out about the nominees on the missing years, with no success. This was a hard investigation by Erick and yours truly. I will be attentive to your comments and help to improve the article. Thanks. Javier Espinoza (talk) 21:56, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by Giants2008 10:01, 23 November 2013 (UTC) [8].[reply]

Nominator(s): matt (talk) 08:33, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it is a comprehensive list of the subject, and a list that meets all FL criteria. It has recently been through a peer review, which threw up no major issues (mainly style and referencing, a few content suggestions)—all of which have been seen to. The list is stable, and content is unlikely to change as no new entries will be added (for obvious reasons!). matt (talk) 08:33, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• You're going to hate me, but I think a sortable list would be much better here. Columns would be Name, Instrument (with "vocals" for singers), track(s), and Ref(s) (the last one being unsortable); "Date" or "Year" may also be useful. This would be much more useful as it would allow us to, say, see all of the people who helped record "Yesterday" at a glance.

Also, you have numerous harv errors (i.e. the links are broken). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:08, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Yep, you're right, I hate you now! How would sorting work with numerous rowspans (for musicians who contributed on numerous occasions)? I presume the best way would be to use one row per contribution (i.e. per song per person)? Thanks for your feedback—is there a tool I can use to quickly check the ref linkage? matt (talk) 07:53, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js is one of the most useful in my repertoire (that's how I spotted them quickly; be sure to read the documentation at User:Ucucha/HarvErrors). To keep it sortable you'd have to either make different entries for each individual recording (with a number (2), (3), etc.) or put the titles in the same box. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:13, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. The tool worked a treat! I guess it's either have the song column sortable (one entry per row) or not sort by it. How would you suggest doing the "name" field for sorting—"Aspinall, Neil"? Not sure if I've seen any MOS topics addressing this. Thanks again for the help. matt (talk) 09:37, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Sortname is the answer to that. For instance, {{Sortname|Neil|Aspinall}} — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment(s). Wow, firstly: great job!

• I wonder if it might be an idea to add something like "Performers" or "Contributing musicians" as a heading inside the contents box near the top of the article. I did a bit of a double take, seeing the letters of the alphabet there with no apparent explanation.
• I would include the Asian Music Circle in the alphabetical list, for their contributions to "Love You To" and "Within You, Without You". And also change wording under Omissions sections for these songs – maybe something like: "the individual members of the Asian Music Circle who contributed to "Love You To" (performing on sitar and tambura)[28] and "Within You Without You" (performing on dilruba, swarmandal, tabla and tambura)"?
• By the way, the sitar in "Love You To" is now generally acknowledged as played by Harrison (Everett and Lewisohn assume so, Peter Lavezzoli is much more committed on this credit). It always surprises me that MacDonald's uncertainty about the identity of this sitarist continues to appear in revised editions of his book; more than anything, the main hook/riff is so obviously blues-based, and very similar in style to Harrison's harder (darker) guitar riffs on Revolver compared with earlier Beatles albums. Having said that, I realise that mention of there being unknown musicians on the song "performing on sitar and tambura" doesn't necessarily conflict with Everett, Lewisohn and Lavezzoli – perhaps there was a second sitar player.
• Also, is there any rationale behind the order of those songs mentioned under Omissions? It's a bit of a surprise to read about the two Indian tracks at the end of the discussion, when "Love You To" is one of the earliest examples of a non-orchestral guest musician appearing on a Beatles recording (perhaps the very first, I'm not sure).
• Jackie Lomax definitely sung on "Prudence", according to MacDonald and others. He was also among the backing chorus on "Hey Jude". I thought I'd read this in Chris O'Dell's book (maybe I did but I can't find it now from mentions of the song listed in the index); and I've come across it in one or two Beatles books. Not very helpful, I admit – Lomax discusses the session in a 2004 interview with Terry Staunton [Terry Staunton, "Jackie Lomax: Is This What You Want?", Record Collector, July 2004; available at Rock's Back Pages]. Not everyone's as mad as me to shell out cash on that RBP site, so here's the relevant text: Staunton: "You were involved in The White Album yourself, weren't you?" Lomax: "I sang the low harmony part on 'Dear Prudence'. I was in the next studio working on my album, and they just dragged me in to help out. It was a bit of a surprise, because I honestly never thought I could add anything to what they were doing. They were The Beatles! I also did a bit of "na na na" on 'Hey Jude', there was quite a pool of us doing our bit there."
• Perhaps add for Lomax and Billy Preston that they were also Apple Records artists? It seems logical to mention it, given the Beatles context of the list.

Hope this helps, Matt. I don't mean to quibble – if you "hate" Crisco 1492, I don't stand a chance either! Again, it looks mighty good right now. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 04:35, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Mattgirling (talk · contribs), anything? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:50, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, sorry—incredibly busy IRL. Thanks for the feedback guys, I'll be on it when I can... matt (talk) 23:06, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.